4 ms·
It's sad that many places call it x86_64 while it's actually amd64. If Itanium had been a success and AMD built such chips, they wouldn't call it aa64 but ia64
by cm3 11y ago
It's sad that many places call it x86_64 while it's actually amd64. If Itanium had been a success and AMD built such chips, they wouldn't call it aa64 but ia64 like the existing name. Hence, it would only be fair to keep calling it AMD64. I don't know if it's just Intel not being comfortable with selling CPUs that implement AMD64. Maybe that's why we have ARM64 and AArch64 for the same thing, one vendor neutral, one with ARM in it. I really don't understand what's so wrong with giving credit. It's not like Intel's shareholders would care.
- Chlorus 11y agoBecause AMD64 is actually distinct from Intel's implementation, which has some subtle differences - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64#Differences_between_AMD64_and_Intel_64\ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64#Differences_between_AMD... The AMD64 usage implies non-compatibility with EM64T..
- cm3 11y agoYeah, but given the various names others came up for it, it would have been nice to have one short name. It's normal for difference to exist even withing revisions of a chip, so it wouldn't have hurt anyone to use one name, When we say x86, we mean everything Intel from the 1980s until now, including Cyrix, AMD, Via, etc. 32bit or 64bit.
- CamperBob2 11y agoYeah, but given the various names others came up for it, it would have been nice to have one short name. Colloquially, "x64" works pretty well.
- cm3 11y agoYep, it's quite odd but works, though many dismiss it as the inferior name, no idea why.